Josephine Sessions

[_DonBradley]

I can vouch for Tim being a broad-minded and flexible liberal Mormon--far, far, far, far from the fundamentalist madding crowd.

Don

[_Bazooka]

Since when does supporting someone mean agreeing with everything they said or did?

I think that Joseph Smith did some very good things during his life. However, the whole polygamy issue, in my view, was a huge sin on the part of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all of the other LDS prophets who supported it as the Lord's word. I realize that there were some saints who honestly thought they were following God's law by practicing polygamy and I have the utmost respect for them. Anyone, however, who knew the truth, and were caught up in the power grab of it all will have plenty to answer for at the Judgement Bar.[/quote]

So, do you think some/all of the Doctrine and Covenants is just uninspired dictation from Joseph Smith which suited what he needed the Saints to think/feel/do?

[_DrW]

tagriffy,

Here are a few questions for you.

As you look at the "revealed scriptures" of the LDS Church and consider the fact that the Book of Abraham is an documented fraud and that Joseph Smith lied about both the provenance of the papyri and and his ability to translate them, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a proven fraud with regard to its claimed historicity, the self-serving "revelations" in the D&C, such as the one described above, along with the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions among the these canonized scriptures, and then consider the several contradictory versions of the first vision and all of the other embarrassing inconsistencies within Mormon history, what does the weight of evidence say to you about the veracity of Joseph Smith's foundational truth claims?

You are mistaking me for someone who believes in propositional revelation. I don't, so these questions as they are posed are largely irrelevant from my point of view. The only relevancy questions about the origins of Scripture have for me is in regard to interpreting the documents. I don't care that Moses didn't write the Torah. I don't care that Isaiah is a composite document of at least three authors. I don't care Jonah is fiction. I don't care that "Matthew" and "Luke" composed their documents using "Mark" and "Q." I don't care that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are Joseph's compositions. The only relevant question for me is whether God speaks to me through them. Everything else is just details.

When you compare the mindset and behavior of Joseph Smith to that of Warren Jeffs, does your enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and revulsion at Warren Jeffs not strike you as a bit incongruous?

Would you publically defend Warren Jeffs for following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

If not, why not?

Wait a minute here. Who said I was enthusiastic about everything Joseph Smith said or did? For that matter, who said I was revulsed by Warren Jeffs? You're assuming facts not in evidence.

First, I don't know enough about the individual cases of Smith, Young, and Jeffs. I do not know how their cases compare and contrast. I do not know how closely Jeffs was following in the footsteps of Smith and Young. Therefore, either defending or condemning Jeffs for following in their footsteps would be a hasty judgment. I avoid making hasty judgments.

Second, if, after due consideration of the facts and circumstances, Smith's behavior is worthy of condemnation, you will find me among the first to do so. Insofar as Jeffs' behavior follows in Smith's footsteps, you will find that my defense or condemnation will be based on consistent principles. You may or may not agree with those principles, but that is beside the point. If I were to condemn Jeffs for something I don't also condemn Smith for, it would be based on what I would consider substantial differences between the cases. If you had new light to shed, I would take that into consideration.

Finally, I am the final authority on what I choose to believe, what I choose to reject, and the reasons I use to do so. I have absolutely no problems with accepting Smith's good ideas and rejecting his bad ones. So when you ask about the weight of the evidence says, I would respond that it is up to each individual to make those determinations.

Thank you for your answers. They certainly leave little doubt as to where you stand.

In your response, you express the often heard apologist claim that there is not enough evidence available to make a final determination regarding certain issues. This reasoning (or poor excuse) is invariably used to justify a maintained unfounded belief in aspects of LDS belief or doctrine that are internally inconsistent, contradictory, troubling or downright embarrassing.

It seems clear from your response that you are unwilling to apply basic skills in the areas of hypothesis generation and testing (including the need for falsifiability), consideration of weight of evidence, and the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) when it comes to making decisions about your religious belief.

From your writing abilities and style, I would guess that you have no problem in the application of these basic decision-making skills in other facets of your life.

[_Yoda]

So, do you think some/all of the Doctrine and Covenants is just uninspired dictation from Joseph Smith which suited what he needed the Saints to think/feel/do?

I certainly feel that way about section 132.

[_beastie]

In all this talk about whether or not Sylvia was with her husband during this period, we ought to keep in mind that another one of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives claimed that Joseph Smith told her to stay with her husband - Mary Rollins Lightner.

Mary continued to live with her first husband, Adam. Of this arrangement, she later wrote, “I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the [current] leaders of the Church does not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do...”

http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/09-MaryRo ... ghtner.htm

[_MsJack]

Personally, I find it disturbing that someone would have other men's wives sealed to him, even without sexuality.

I don't want to comment on Brian Hales' book specifically because I haven't read it yet. I saw his Sunstone 2012 presentation and I've read a lot of discussion and reviews of his book.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to comment anyways. The gist I'm getting from all of that is that Hales argues that no sexual polyandry = no spiritual polyandry. As far as the polyandrous wives of Joseph Smith go, so long as Joseph was not sexual with these women at the same time as their husbands were, these weren't real polyandrous marriages in God's eyes.

And if I have understood that accurately, and I'm not doing injustice to Hales' work on account of having not read it, I just have to say, I'm really troubled by the suggestion that it takes sex to make a marriage a "real" marriage in God's eyes. Emotional affairs are a problem for many couples for a reason: because two people can enjoy an incredible range of intimacy and emotions without ever physically touching one another. Many couples who have had to take sex out of their relationships for reasons such as the debilitating illness of one spouse could tell you that. For my own part, even if it could be proven that these polyandrous relationships did not involve sex, that would not automatically rule them out as marriages, either in the eyes of the participants or in the eyes of God.

Furthermore, I think it's worth pointing out that the rationality Hales uses to defend Joseph and Sylvia from the charge of polyandry would result in a verdict of adultery in the modern-day LDS church. Just try telling your bishop that you divorced your spouse "in God's eyes" and married another person "in God's eyes," then became sexual with "spouse" #2, yet you did not even attempt to file for legal divorce nor legal marriage. It's true that divorce could be very difficult for a woman living in the 1800s to obtain, but it can still be difficult to obtain today. Lots of people feel "stuck" in marriages they no longer want because they can't afford the divorce proceedings. Yet I'm willing to bet that, even when a person had been fighting to obtain a divorce for years, a bishop would not be sympathetic to said person declaring their old marriage to have ended and then shacking up with a new person whom they consider their spouse. So why does Joseph Smith get to do it?

Just some random thoughts. Reading Hales' work is on my to-do list, and I hope to refine those thoughts when I get around to it.

[_honorentheos]

Hi tagriffy,

The only relevancy questions about the origins of Scripture have for me is in regard to interpreting the documents. ...The only relevant question for me is whether God speaks to me through them. Everything else is just details.

You have an interesting perspective, one not so far from my own when read with an open mind. But it leaves a question unanswered that I hope you will address.

Does the above apply to non-scriptural texts? Could the same criteria be applied to the poetry of T.S. Eliot for example? While there are religious overtones and themes in his writing, since it's not scripture would you say it could occupy the same level of importance so long as God was able to speak to you through it?

Or taking a step further, what about the writings of Richard Feynman the physicist? Could a non-religious work that speaks to you in some deeper way be place on the same level as the Book of Job, a clear work of religious fiction?

Or going even further in this direction, what about a work that argues specifically against there being a “God” after the Judeo-Christian-Islam traditions? If a work were to ignite the spark of your intellect in a way as if God were speaking to you, could it also occupy the same space as scripture?

Thank you in advance for considering the question.

[_tagriffy]

Thank you for your answers. They certainly leave little doubt as to where you stand.

In your response, you express the often heard apologist claim that there is not enough evidence available to make a final determination regarding certain issues. This reasoning (or poor excuse) is invariably used to justify a maintained unfounded belief in aspects of LDS belief or doctrine that are internally inconsistent, contradictory, troubling or downright embarrassing.

It seems clear from your response that you are unwilling to apply basic skills in the areas of hypothesis generation and testing (including the need for falsifiability), consideration of weight of evidence, and the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) when it comes to making decisions about your religious belief.

From your writing abilities and style, I would guess that you have no problem in the application of these basic decision-making skills in other facets of your life.

In my case, it would be more correct to say I don't have enough interest in the topic to go into such detailed studies. Such is the case in the specific case you posed about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Warren Jeffs. For me, the topic is interesting, but peripheral. Note that I'm not saying there is not enough evidence to make a final determination. I said I don't have enough information to make a final determination. In this case, I feel that refusing to either defend or condemn these characters is the only ethical response. If you are suggesting I violate my ethical code, then my response is thanks, but no thanks.

Furthermore, there is nothing, nothing, in my response that suggests my ignorance of any given topic is an excuse for maintaining unfounded beliefs. I said as much when I declared myself the final authority in what I choose to believe. In fact, because Mormon doctrine is, as you say, "internally inconsistent, contradictory, troubling or downright embarrassing," I have no choice but to make the best determinations I can in what to accept or reject.

If by my supposed unwillingness to apply basic skills in hypothesis generation, etc., you simply mean to accuse me of not being a philosophical naturalist, then I will cheerfully admit it. If you are saying I reject methodological naturalism entirely, then I suggest reading my "Environmental Theory" essay (http://tagriffy.blogspot.com/2013/05/en ... heory.html) and try to maintain that position. If you're complaining that I don't restrict myself to naturalistic methods in religious decision making, then my response is that is your problem, not mine.

[_tagriffy]

Hi tagriffy,

The only relevancy questions about the origins of Scripture have for me is in regard to interpreting the documents. ...The only relevant question for me is whether God speaks to me through them. Everything else is just details.

You have an interesting perspective, one not so far from my own when read with an open mind. But it leaves a question unanswered that I hope you will address.

Does the above apply to non-scriptural texts? Could the same criteria be applied to the poetry of T.S. Eliot for example? While there are religious overtones and themes in his writing, since it's not scripture would you say it could occupy the same level of importance so long as God was able to speak to you through it?

Or taking a step further, what about the writings of Richard Feynman the physicist? Could a non-religious work that speaks to you in some deeper way be place on the same level as the Book of Job, a clear work of religious fiction?

Or going even further in this direction, what about a work that argues specifically against there being a “God” after the Judeo-Christian-Islam traditions? If a work were to ignite the spark of your intellect in a way as if God were speaking to you, could it also occupy the same space as scripture?

Thank you in advance for considering the question.

Yes, the above does apply to non-scriptural texts. After rejecting verbal inspiration of Scripture and propositional revelation, I haven't sweated out the details of what it means to say a given text is inspired. However, the neo-Orthodox view that Scripture only becomes Scripture when one reads the text is very appealing to me. Obviously it is a relativistic viewpoint and comes with the dangers inherent in relativism. I have to admit there is a bit of delicious irony in telling an atheist inspired by an atheistic work is a way of saying God is speaking to him through that work. Specific canons are for specific communities, not an a priori restriction on an individual.

[_DrW]

Thank you for your answers. They certainly leave little doubt as to where you stand.

In your response, you express the often heard apologist claim that there is not enough evidence available to make a final determination regarding certain issues. This reasoning (or poor excuse) is invariably used to justify a maintained unfounded belief in aspects of LDS belief or doctrine that are internally inconsistent, contradictory, troubling or downright embarrassing.

It seems clear from your response that you are unwilling to apply basic skills in the areas of hypothesis generation and testing (including the need for falsifiability), consideration of weight of evidence, and the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) when it comes to making decisions about your religious belief.

From your writing abilities and style, I would guess that you have no problem in the application of these basic decision-making skills in other facets of your life.

In my case, it would be more correct to say I don't have enough interest in the topic to go into such detailed studies. Such is the case in the specific case you posed about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Warren Jeffs. For me, the topic is interesting, but peripheral. Note that I'm not saying there is not enough evidence to make a final determination. I said I don't have enough information to make a final determination. In this case, I feel that refusing to either defend or condemn these characters is the only ethical response. If you are suggesting I violate my ethical code, then my response is thanks, but no thanks.

Furthermore, there is nothing, nothing, in my response that suggests my ignorance of any given topic is an excuse for maintaining unfounded beliefs. I said as much when I declared myself the final authority in what I choose to believe. In fact, because Mormon doctrine is, as you say, "internally inconsistent, contradictory, troubling or downright embarrassing," I have no choice but to make the best determinations I can in what to accept or reject.

If by my supposed unwillingness to apply basic skills in hypothesis generation, etc., you simply mean to accuse me of not being a philosophical naturalist, then I will cheerfully admit it. If you are saying I reject methodological naturalism entirely, then I suggest reading my "Environmental Theory" essay (http://tagriffy.blogspot.com/2013/05/en ... heory.html) and try to maintain that position. If you're complaining that I don't restrict myself to naturalistic methods in religious decision making, then my response is that is your problem, not mine.

Thank you for the link to your essay on Environmental Theory. Surprisingly perhaps, I can agree in large part with what you wrote, although I see the discussion as a lot of effort to demonstrate something that many would find self evident after a cursory look at the situation.

On the other hand, if your purpose was specifically to convince the faithful, then I think the essay works.

Having read your essay, the question that comes to mind is whether or not you consider yourself a faithful Mormon.